comp.lang.javascript FAQ question
VK
originally missed a few weeks old discussion about FAQ posting and
update.
While making my program for automated FAQ posting, I've made some
research on the FAQ question. That time the program was not used by the
FAQ poster, but I kept the article on my laptop. I see the moment now
to post it.
-------------
As it is (or isn't) known, Big Seven's Usenet groups do not have
*official* FAQ or sites or links. The only official parts are
Rationale, Charter and Short Description. These parts are formed before
voting and stored (if passed) in <news.announce.newgroups> archives for
public references.
It is also a rule that the above mentioned documents (Rationale,
Charter, Short Description) are made on the "Once in - Never out"
principles. Once passed the voting and approved they never can be
changed: a new newsgroup must be created instead if needed. This is the
rule of the classic Usenet (at least): groups are not "updating" with
time. They are appearing and disappearing (if no activity) based on the
current demand.
In this concern comp.lang.javascript exists with more than 10 years old
charter and still fully within of it and it doesn't lack posting
activity :-) My sincere congratulations.
Any other resources related to a newsgroup - including FAQ - are
subjects of the public consensus and the newsgroup's traditions. For
older newsgroup traditions possibly have even more weight than some "up
to time consensus". It means that legally anyone can start posting
something called "official FAQ", but in application to clj it would be
a bogus to be killfiled.
The creation of comp.lang.javascript had been initialized by Thomas
Winzig in December of 1995. The standard voting process has been
conducted in January 1996. By the majority of votes the new group was
approved January 27 1996
A side note: on January 27 of each year it could a "birthday posting"
:-)
All results of the voting process are stored at
<news.announce.newgroups> It can be viewed say at
<http://groups.google.com/group/news.announce.newgroups/browse_frm/thread/e472637f7141a60d/1cfd3fc1b03fd982>
Right after the creation the newsgroup did not have any explicit
leader. AFAICT the main and only purpose of Thomas Winzig was to get
rid of JavaScript questions in Java-related newsgroups. He did not
participate much in clj any after.
In April of 1996 Gordon McComb created a page called "unofficial FAQ"
and he started to provide links to it in his posts. Unfortunately this
page located at <http://www.freqgrafx.com/411/jsfaq.html> was not
preserved.
In the end of May of 1996 Erica L. Sadun created a document called "The
JavaScript FAQlet" using her own experience and partially materials of
Gordon McComb. She started to post "The JavaScript FAQlet" in clj
rather regularly but without any fixed schedule. The original version
can be viewed at
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_frm/thread/e1f1d331269e6cc6/5c0e0aa2b389ef24?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1&hl=en#5c0e0aa2b389ef24>
By the end of summer of 1996 Erica stopped her postings and then
Michael Moncur created the revised version called "comp.lang.javascript
Mini-FAQ". He started to post this document weekly by Saturdays.
April 1998 Christopher Thompson restored the regularity of postings. He
created fully revisited version called "comp.lang.javascript meta-FAQ".
The current clj FAQ (after eight major updates) still keeps the
structure of Thomson's document. The original beta version can be
viewed at
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_frm/thread/9214118f167e8800/50ff3fd5ae5c532a?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1&hl=en#50ff3fd5ae5c532a>
February 1999 Thompson asked for volunteers to take over the FAQ
posting and maintenance. Jim Ley called for this, he also donated space
on jibbering.com for FAQ storage. The first FAQ post under the name of
Jim Ley was made October of 1999. Since November of 1999 the FAQ posted
with sender name "comp.lang.javascript FAQ" (no more individual names).
January 2004 Jim Ley asked for volunteers to take over the FAQ
maintenance. Richard Cornford called for this. March 2004 Richard
Cornford released next major update #8. The current FAQ version is 8.1,
so there were not any major updates for 2.5 years by now.
Prieure de comp.lang.javascript FAQ (to Dan Brown with all my
disrespect :-)
Gordon McComb | Apr 1996 - June 1996 | "unofficial FAQ"
Erica L. Sadun | June 1996 - Aug 1996 | "The JavaScript FAQlet"
Michael Moncur | Aug 1996 - Mar 1998 | "comp.lang.javascript Mini-FAQ"
Christopher Thompson | Apr 1998 - Feb 1999 | "comp.lang.javascript
meta-FAQ"
Jim Ley | Feb 1999 - Jan 2004 | "comp.lang.javascript META-FAQ"
Richard Cornford | Jan 2004 - now | "comp.lang.javascript FAQ"
>From this rather long preface it should be clear that only Richard
Cornford has moral rights to maintain FAQ or to transfer this duty to
someone else. Jim Ley (despite still active participant of clj) should
stay with his decision of Jan 2004 and avoid putting any pressure.
At the same time I would like to remind to Mr.Cornford that his duty is
to be a FAQ *maintainer* and not a *FAQ archives keeper*. The Internet
does the latter automatically without any extra help.
The best way IMHO to move the FAQ out of the current stagnation:
The whole procedure of adding/updating/removing FAQENTRY's has to be
much stricter defined and narrowed. It is not good enough that 1-2-3
people - however "oldposting" and knowlegeable they are - are saying
"it is not a FAQ" or "it is wrong".
That must be a well-defined amount of similar questions within a month
that makes it to be a FAQ. It is completely *out* of the public
interest what does the current FAQ maintainer think of such question:
is it a "good question" or she would rather kill whoever is asking it.
It is irrelevant. She is only in power to decide where to add the new
FAQENTRY and what other FAQENTRY to remove if needed to keep the FAQ
list compact.
After a new FAQENTRY is defined it must be a public discussion for the
best answer to the question. This discussion i) should not take forever
and ii) must be the best *practical* answer to a practical question.
Evangelistic narrations of type "don't use it", "don't do it", "it's
useless" etc must be kept exclusively for private posts and blogs.
Until this ussue is not solved, the frequency and the mechanics of the
FAQ posting is not really so important.
Richard Cornford
> As I'm still in Europe with rather occasional Internet access, ...
<snip>
The greatly reduced irrelevant noise originating from you has been
appreciated. It is a pity that you cannot keep it that way.
You opinions remain, as always, worthless.
Richard.
VK
Richard Cornford wrote:
> The greatly reduced irrelevant noise originating from you has been
> appreciated. It is a pity that you cannot keep it that way.
>
> You opinions remain, as always, worthless.
I have shown to everyone (who's interested to read) the history and
traditions of the FAQ posting in clj. It also explains why someone
Richard Cornford is currently on charge of the group FAQ and why his
position and opinion must be respected.
At the same time Mr.Cornford is not the group's creator nor the
original FAQ editor/poster. He is just the last in the long chain
started back in 1996. Thusly if Mr.Cornford is in a private opinion
that back in March 2004 he managed to create some "ultimate final all
times FAQ version" which doesn't need any major upgrades anymore - if
he really thinks so then he is sorry mistaken. It is a sorry mistake
even if some other people (including ones participated in the March
2004 edition) may share the same opinion.
The FAQ has to become FAQ once again, not an historical document. That
was the 4th attempt to change a damn line in the book over the last
year (no one was initialized by myself). Every single time it shutes
down slowly but surely by the current FAQ's maintainer. I don't know
for how long is he hoping to *keep* rather than *maintain* the FAQ, but
the time limit may be shorter than he thinks it is. Usenet is not an
absolute monarchy nor a hunta. It is closer to the democratic
institutions - closer than Mr.Cornford possibly thinks.
"The FAQ, its wording and revisions, are open to public scrutiny and
comment in
this forum and the results are by mutual consent (albeit passive
consent
in most cases)."
Richard Cornford
July 2, 2003
Bart Van der Donck
> [...]
> While making my program for automated FAQ posting, I've made some
> research on the FAQ question. That time the program was not used by the
> FAQ poster, but I kept the article on my laptop. I see the moment now
> to post it.
I wasn't aware that somebody else besides me was working on automated
FAQ postings. Didn't mean to pick the salt from your potatoes.
> [ ... skip FAQ history ... ]
Why not making a FAQ entry of that :-) "What is the history of the
comp.lang.javascript FAQ ?"
> The best way IMHO to move the FAQ out of the current stagnation:
>
> The whole procedure of adding/updating/removing FAQENTRY's has to be
> much stricter defined and narrowed. It is not good enough that 1-2-3
> people - however "oldposting" and knowlegeable they are - are saying
> "it is not a FAQ" or "it is wrong".
Well, I'ld say that depends on the criteria that are used to make such
a decision, not so much on the number of persons.
> That must be a well-defined amount of similar questions within a month
> that makes it to be a FAQ. It is completely *out* of the public
> interest what does the current FAQ maintainer think of such question:
> is it a "good question" or she would rather kill whoever is asking it.
> It is irrelevant. She is only in power to decide where to add the new
> FAQENTRY and what other FAQENTRY to remove if needed to keep the FAQ
> list compact.
>
> After a new FAQENTRY is defined it must be a public discussion for the
> best answer to the question.
True, but I'm also convinced that many of such public discussions
already took place in the past, but without making it to the FAQ. Why
not browse the archives and extract useful information from it ?
The same could apply to existing code from various resources -
thoroughly reviewed, adapted where necessary and added to the FAQ. The
questions are as important as the answers; they should cover frequent,
practical topics and offer qualitative responses. I'ld look at the FAQ
as a library of (mostly) ready-to-go solutions for common problems.
I think the FAQ should just have more content, I'm imagining things
like
- How do I find yesterday's date ?
- How to know the Unicode code point of a character ?
- How many dimensions can variables have in javascript ?
- Can I store files using javascript ?
etc. etc.
> This discussion i) should not take forever
> and ii) must be the best *practical* answer to a practical question.
Totally right, IMHO!
--
Bart
VK
Bart Van der Donck wrote:
> I wasn't aware that somebody else besides me was working on automated
> FAQ postings. Didn't mean to pick the salt from your potatoes.
Never mind at all :-)
Everyone (I'm sure) appreciate your efforts. You also may take a look
at the script I wrote a while ago by the agreement with the FAQ poster:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/tree/browse_frm/thread/2b234f5ba2cae095/ff73768ed44445bc?rnum=1&q=VK+FAQ&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fcomp.lang.javascript%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F2b234f5ba2cae095%2Ff847811bc3824c2e%3Flnk%3Dgst%26q%3DVK+FAQ%26rnum%3D1%26#doc_9746a91f36066748>
It also takes into account some particular demands for the data
treatment. Not to say that I'm agreed with all of them: indeed one XML
source (as in your case) for both Usenet posting and HTML display is
much easier and up to date.
As I understand the problem properly it is not about software per se
but about a Usenet account. The free ones are very rare now and they
have high tendency to disappear/be down. A payed account would create
too much of monetary involvement for the poster. I mean it would be
better to keep all future discussions between equal volunteers rather
than between freebes and someone who's investing her own money on a
monthly basis.
If you have a free Usenet account in Denmark you would like to share,
that would be greate to inform Mr.Cornford. One could solve at least
this part of the problem (not the biggest one though).
At the same time - and with deapest respect to the efforts you've spent
- that would be not totally appropriate IMHO to start FAQ posting in
this newsgroup without an explicit agreement with Richard Cornford; or
without his explicit statement that this part of the problem is given
to the public resolution.
> Why not making a FAQ entry of that :-) "What is the history of the
> comp.lang.javascript FAQ ?"
Not only that, but also links to all FAQ versions by years starting
from 1996. I assure you that it is an amazing reading, reflecting the
whole Web development history as well.
>> VK:
> > The whole procedure of adding/updating/removing FAQENTRY's has to be
> > much stricter defined and narrowed. It is not good enough that 1-2-3
> > people - however "oldposting" and knowlegeable they are - are saying
> > "it is not a FAQ" or "it is wrong".
>
> Well, I'ld say that depends on the criteria that are used to make such
> a decision, not so much on the number of persons.
FAQ is "Frequently Asked Question(s)" ;-) So we have one *measurable*
category independent from the private opinions: the frequency.
It also mean that FAQ has the tendency to change by years and even
within one year.
In 1996 one of the tops was about using document.write() In 2005/2006
it's ajaxoids and libraries. One FAQENTRY's are being added, others are
being removed as useless. It is a natural everlasting process.
> True, but I'm also convinced that many of such public discussions
> already took place in the past, but without making it to the FAQ. Why
> not browse the archives and extract useful information from it ?
FAQ is not a ultimate source of answers, it is a convenience tool. It
is much easier to read a compact article rather than search by keywords
in old postings. Also not everyone is using Google Groups, and the
Usenet as it is has very primitive search tools (over news agents). In
the most cases threads older than 1-3 months are out of reach for the
public.
Bart Van der Donck
> Everyone (I'm sure) appreciate your efforts. You also may take a look
> at the script I wrote a while ago by the agreement with the FAQ poster:
> [skip url]
> It also takes into account some particular demands for the data
> treatment. Not to say that I'm agreed with all of them: indeed one XML
> source (as in your case) for both Usenet posting and HTML display is
> much easier and up to date.
I'ld even go a step further. Take one database storage with a common
API and derive all output formats you want from it (xls csv htm xml edi
txt etc). The current data is workable, but indeed not ideal IMO. The
weak point is data-structural, not technical. I think it's typical for
manual XML maintenance.
> As I understand the problem properly it is not about software per se
> but about a Usenet account. The free ones are very rare now and they
> have high tendency to disappear/be down. A payed account would create
> too much of monetary involvement for the poster. I mean it would be
> better to keep all future discussions between equal volunteers rather
> than between freebes and someone who's investing her own money on a
> monthly basis.
>
> If you have a free Usenet account in Denmark you would like to share,
> that would be greate to inform Mr.Cornford. One could solve at least
> this part of the problem (not the biggest one though).
Yes, I've spent some time to find Usenet accounts, I think I've found
some good ones.
http://www.sunsite.dk/ (free, text-only, easy registration
http://dotsrc.org/usenet)
http://news.individual.net/ (10 Euro/y, text-only)
http://www.teranews.com/ (3 Euro setup, then free)
http://www.newzbot.com/ is a portal site dedicated to Usenet servers.
If sunsite.dk would go down, it's easy to set another account in Perl
script.
> At the same time - and with deapest respect to the efforts you've spent
> - that would be not totally appropriate IMHO to start FAQ posting in
> this newsgroup without an explicit agreement with Richard Cornford; or
> without his explicit statement that this part of the problem is given
> to the public resolution.
I hereby ask him (and anyone) what he thinks about it.
--
Bart
VK
Bart Van der Donck wrote:
> some good ones.
>
> http://www.sunsite.dk/ (free, text-only, easy registration
> http://dotsrc.org/usenet)
> http://news.individual.net/ (10 Euro/y, text-only)
> http://www.teranews.com/ (3 Euro setup, then free)
>
> http://www.newzbot.com/ is a portal site dedicated to Usenet servers.
> If sunsite.dk would go down, it's easy to set another account in Perl
> script.
One can add here free cheap56k.com (server news.cheap56k.com)
This is what I went for testing, but I don't like that they put random
ads at the bottom of each post. How is sunsite.dk in this matter?
> >- that would be not totally appropriate IMHO to start FAQ posting in
> > this newsgroup without an explicit agreement with Richard Cornford; or
> > without his explicit statement that this part of the problem is given
> > to the public resolution.
>
> I hereby ask him (and anyone) what he thinks about it.
Good question asking for a good answer. As we know for sure that
Richard was here just one day ago, one could expect a prompt response.
If no response then one could estimate with a good probability that he
opted for the option two (the problem is given to the public
resolution).
Richard Cornford
<snip>
>> As I understand the problem properly ...
If that were the case it would be novel. But instead you have
miss-understood as usual (nobody will be surprised by that as
understanding what was said required the comprehension of written
English and you just don't do that).
>> If you have a free Usenet account in Denmark you would like to
>> share, that would be greate to inform Mr.Cornford. One could
>> solve at least this part of the problem (not the biggest one though).
>
> Yes, I've spent some time to find Usenet accounts, I think I've found
> some good ones.
<snip>
You should not let VK waste your time. Generally, when VK makes a
statement it is most efficient to just assume that it is wrong.
>> At the same time - and with deapest respect to the efforts you've
>> spent - that would be not totally appropriate IMHO to start FAQ
>> posting in this newsgroup without an explicit agreement with
>> Richard Cornford; or without his explicit statement that this
>> part of the problem is given to the public resolution.
Halfwit!
> I hereby ask him (and anyone) what he thinks about it.
It will be interesting to see if "anyone" can tell you what I think
about it.
Richard.
Bart Van der Donck
> Bart Van der Donck wrote:
> > Yes, I've spent some time to find Usenet accounts, I think I've found
> > some good ones.
> > [skip server list]
>
> One can add here free cheap56k.com (server news.cheap56k.com)
> This is what I went for testing, but I don't like that they put random
> ads at the bottom of each post. How is sunsite.dk in this matter?
>From the information I have, it seems sunsite.dk offers reliable/steady
Usenet accounts. No ads.
> > > VK:
> > >- that would be not totally appropriate IMHO to start FAQ posting in
> > > this newsgroup without an explicit agreement with Richard Cornford; or
> > > without his explicit statement that this part of the problem is given
> > > to the public resolution.
> > BVdD:
> > I hereby ask him (and anyone) what he thinks about it.
> VK:
> As we know for sure that Richard was here just one day ago, one could
> expect a prompt response. If no response then one could estimate with
> a good probability that he opted for the option two (the problem is given
> to the public resolution).
The door is open! :-)
--
Bart
VK
>> Bart Van der Donck wrote:
>> I hereby ask him (and anyone) what he thinks about it.
> Richard Cornford wrote:
> It will be interesting to see if "anyone" can tell you what I think
> about it.
Anyone can tell if the current FAQ posting situation is of the best
interests of the community or not. If decided no, a better solution can
be found by mutual consent (albeit passive consent in most cases).
sunsite.dk server currently seems to be the best option for the
automated posting. At the same it must be some commitment from the
poster to install and to provide a minimum support of the posting bot
for a reasonnably long period of time (one year at least).
If Mr. Bart Van der Donck is willing to donate his time for that, he
has my vote YES in advance.
Also there is the official (as much as something can be "official" in
the Usenet) FAQ server supported by MIT. They keep and maintain
FAQ-related materials of the Usenet back to 1993. That could be a
future option (?)
<http://www.faqs.org/faqs/>
<http://www.faqs.org/faq-maintainers/>
<http://www.faqs.org/faq-maintainers/faq-server/>
Ray
Bart Van der Donck wrote:
<snip>
> Why not making a FAQ entry of that :-) "What is the history of the
> comp.lang.javascript FAQ ?"
Heck yeah. I'm new in c.l.j. and I'm curious what's up with this FAQ
thing and VK. Are his entries often inaccurate, and therefore mislead
JS newbies like me, or what?
<snip>
Richard Cornford
<snip>
> ... VK. Are his entries often inaccurate, and therefore mislead
> JS newbies like me, or what?
"Often inaccurate" would be an understatement. He doesn't understand
what the code he writes himself actually does, does not know how
javascript should be expected to behave (and has many fictional notions
of what should be happening), has a superficial understanding of (a
few) browser DOMs (and believes many things that are not the case) and
has a habit of addressing "issues" (many of which are figments of his
own imagination) by taking the worst possible approach available. He
cannot be corrected, even by repeated detailed technical explanation,
because he is absolutely convinced that his understanding, though
unique, is already correct and true, and repeatedly being demonstrated
wrong does not hint to him that his self confidence is misplaced.
Richard.
Ray
> "Often inaccurate" would be an understatement. He doesn't understand
> what the code he writes himself actually does, does not know how
> javascript should be expected to behave (and has many fictional notions
> of what should be happening), has a superficial understanding of (a
> few) browser DOMs (and believes many things that are not the case) and
> has a habit of addressing "issues" (many of which are figments of his
> own imagination) by taking the worst possible approach available. He
> cannot be corrected, even by repeated detailed technical explanation,
> because he is absolutely convinced that his understanding, though
> unique, is already correct and true, and repeatedly being demonstrated
> wrong does not hint to him that his self confidence is misplaced.
Sounds like a bloody dangerous poster, especially for those new to
JavaScript. Thanks for the warning, Richard!
>
> Richard.
Richard Cornford
> Richard Cornford wrote:
<snip>
> Sounds like a bloody dangerous poster, especially for those new to
Yes, and doubly harmful because of the amount of time and effort
expended trying to mitigate the damage he does, that could otherwise be
directed more productivly.
Richard.
VK
> Heck yeah. I'm new in c.l.j. and I'm curious what's up with this FAQ
> thing and VK. Are his entries often inaccurate, and therefore mislead
> JS newbies like me, or what?
<OT>
If you are new in c.l.j. than it would be more appropriate IMHO to
silently listen for people who are posting here for years - rather than
discuss from the sky blue their personalities.
If you have doubts about the factual side of the FAQ posting history I
provided in this thread, you are welcome to search the archives by
yourselve. If any errors are found, I will be glad to be pointed out.
If you personally had a problem with my advise to you, please provide a
link. I do not recall of helping you, but I do not remember each and
every post.
Untill then you are asked to be so kind to shut up on the off-topic
subjects.
</OT>
Back to the topic of this thread:
comp.lang.javascript FAQ posting does not work for several months now.
It never happened before since the group was created in 1996.
The current FAQ maintainer (Richard Cornford) did not make a thing to
solve the situation: his spaceous and mainly nasty OT revelations of
the kind one can see here do no help obviously.
Mr. Bart Van der Donck has a working program and Usenet account to
restore the posting.
If Mr. Bart Van der Donck is willing to donate his time for that, I'm
voting YES for him. I'm ready to donate my time either but if my
candidature is so bad, I'm even not proposing it.
If you want that Mr. Bart Van der Donck restored FAQ posting then vote
YES in this thread.
If you don't want to restore FAQ posting then vote NO.
If you don't give a damn about this problem then vote ABSTAIN (or
better yet do not vote at all).
If you have nothing to say on the subject then be quiet (the same goes
to any other potential OT posters).
Anyone (including new posters) is welcome to vote on the subject.
Richard Cornford
<snip>
> <OT>
<snip>
> Untill then you are asked to be so kind to shut up on the
> off-topic subjects.
> </OT>
>
> Back to the topic of this thread:
How often is it going to be necessary to tell you; threads do not have
topics, they have subjects, which do not limit/restrict the matters
discussed in the thread? Things that are off topic can only be off
topic for the group as a whole. At the topic for the group is
javascript the discussion of poor sources of information on javascript
certainly is on topic for the group.
Richard.
Bart Van der Donck
> [...]
> If Mr. Bart Van der Donck is willing to donate his time for that, he
> has my vote YES in advance.
Yes, I'm willing to follow up the daily FAQ postings. I think it will
probably take not so much time. When the FAQ gets updated, the only
requirement would be to keep the XML's main structure:
<FAQ>
<TITLE>comp.lang.javascript FAQ</TITLE>
<CONTENTS>
<CONTENT TITLE="chapter name">
<CONTENT TITLE="entry title">
text with <additional> </tags> in it
</CONTENT>
...more entries in the same chapter...
</CONTENT>
...more chapters with their entries...
</CONTENTS>
</FAQ>
I think this should normally be no problem; it was my intention to make
this as flexible as possible towards the future.
> [...]
--
Bart
Bart Van der Donck
> Sounds like a bloody dangerous poster, especially for those new to
> JavaScript. Thanks for the warning, Richard!
I think you should relativise such statements a bit. Inaccurate
information is mostly quickly corrected in this newsgroup, and anyone
makes a mistake now and then (don't we all). But "bloody dangerous
poster" is not really the word for that :-)
But yes, the technical expertise of Richard's articles is among the
best I've ever seen, but they do require quite some javascript
knowledge beforehand to well understand. I think their outstanding
technical value does not always reflect their educational value.
--
Bart
Ray
> Ray wrote:
> > Heck yeah. I'm new in c.l.j. and I'm curious what's up with this FAQ
> > thing and VK. Are his entries often inaccurate, and therefore mislead
> > JS newbies like me, or what?
>
> <OT>
> If you are new in c.l.j. than it would be more appropriate IMHO to
> silently listen for people who are posting here for years - rather than
> discuss from the sky blue their personalities.
I am new to JavaScript and c.l.j., therefore it is important for me and
other JS newbies like me to know which posters we can trust to be
knowledgeable and won't mislead us while we're still solidifying our
foundation in the language.
> If you have doubts about the factual side of the FAQ posting history I
> provided in this thread, you are welcome to search the archives by
> yourselve. If any errors are found, I will be glad to be pointed out.
I did. I found your Vector sample code. It was
so....................................... advanced I got speechless--as
such I can't point anything out, sorry.
> If you personally had a problem with my advise to you, please provide a
> link. I do not recall of helping you, but I do not remember each and
> every post.
Nope, of course I don't have any problem with your advice to me since
you haven't given me any. But obviously your (future, if any) advice
will be way too............................................. advanced,
for me, so that's probably alright too.
> Untill then you are asked to be so kind to shut up on the off-topic
> subjects.
Yes Sensei!!!
> </OT>
Ray
Bart Van der Donck wrote:
>
> > Sounds like a bloody dangerous poster, especially for those new to
> > JavaScript. Thanks for the warning, Richard!
>
> I think you should relativise such statements a bit. Inaccurate
> information is mostly quickly corrected in this newsgroup, and anyone
> makes a mistake now and then (don't we all). But "bloody dangerous
> poster" is not really the word for that :-)
Hi Bart,
I'm speaking from my p.o.v. really (which is perhaps not shared by
other newbies, if I may add). I'm new to JavaScript and I'm using it
not as a hobby but in a project with a very, very tight deadline. As
such, a poster like that is dangerous to me, especially because at this
stage I can't always tell whether something is true or not, and I
really can't afford to be misled.
Yes, of course everybody makes mistakes :) But I am thankful that I get
informed early on on who to listen to... and who not to listen to.
> But yes, the technical expertise of Richard's articles is among the
> best I've ever seen, but they do require quite some javascript
> knowledge beforehand to well understand. I think their outstanding
> technical value does not always reflect their educational value.
Thanks for pointing that out! :)
Cheers
Ray
>
> --
> Bart
Richard Cornford
>> Sounds like a bloody dangerous poster, especially for those
>> new to JavaScript. Thanks for the warning, Richard!
>
> I think you should relativise such statements a bit.
There is certainly no harm in looking at VK's Usenet posting history.
> Inaccurate information is mostly quickly corrected in
> this newsgroup,
Mostly, but there are only a limited number of people capable of
correcting VK's fictions and they only have a limited amount of time for
doing so. When he is in full flow he is posting at about three times the
rate of even regular contributors (it is not that difficult to maintain
that rate when you don't bother yourself with technical verisimilitude,
and make most of it up off the top of your head) so it might take the
equivalent of all the efforts of a couple of people to correct
everything he posts. A couple of years ago nearly everything that VK
posted was subject to immediate correction, but as it became apparent
that a dozen people explaining something to VK in different ways on half
a dozen occasions would not tend to result in VK correcting his
misconceptions the nature of the responses to his posts changed. When it
is clear that effort expended in the direction of trying to get VK to
understand javascript are wasted people are less motivated to make the
effort.
You also have to bare in mind that much of what VK posts is incoherent
babble, mad up of vague allusions and miss-applied jargon. Beyond
stating that it is nonsense there is no real correction to be made, as
things need to be understandable before they can be commented upon at
all.
> and anyone
> makes a mistake now and then (don't we all).
Yes, everyone makes mistakes, and beginners (including those how are
already confident in their javascript authoring ability) reveal their
misconceptions and the shortcomings in their understanding. However,
most people benefit form being corrected in that they learn from it and
so do not repeat their mistakes.
That is, after all, the process by which I learnt javascript. Go back 4
years in the archives and you will find me being more corrected than
not. Corrections for which I am eternally grateful, as they provided
knowledge and direction toward considerably improving my grasp of the
subject.
However, you can correct VK until you are blue in the face and he will
still maintain that he is the only one who really understands the
subject, and remain sufficiently confident in his understanding that he
will happily post the same rubbish again that the next provocation.
> But "bloody dangerous
> poster" is not really the word for that :-)
It may not be the name for someone who would benefit form
correction/explanation, but for VK "bloody dangerous poster" is pretty
much spot on.
> But yes, the technical expertise of Richard's articles is
> among the best I've ever seen, but they do require quite
> some javascript knowledge beforehand to well understand.
If people ask I (or as often someone else) can/will explain what is not
understood (subject to the question being expressed in a well-formed
Usenet post).
I have lost count of the number of times VK has been asked to explain
statements he has made. He never does so, the best you get is a detour
into an irrelevant tangent.
> I think their outstanding technical value does not always
> reflect their educational value.
I don't think you have seen enough to judge (particularly if you have
not seen enough of the group to appreciate exactly what a waste of time
VK actually is).
Richard.
VK
> How often is it going to be necessary to tell you; threads do not have
> topics, they have subjects, which do not limit/restrict the matters
> discussed in the thread?
Timothy Larson said it so good about the attitude demonstrated by some
individuals like you that it is in my bookmarks for a very longe time.
I really have nothing to add, just changed a bit to fit to my case. The
latest original variant can be seen at
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html/msg/7436acd5ad381b53>
I've been on Usenet since 1995. I don't need your opinion to inform me
what a newsgroup is or is not, or how it should or shouldn't be used to
realize its potential. Maybe you weren't around back in those days, or
maybe years of the "new" internet have made you jaded.
It was commonly accepted then that technical NGs such as this one were
places that people could use as a resource to get solutions. This
isn't
alt.fan.ricky-martin or something, where we can "discuss" back and
forth
with no goal or objective in mind other than the discussion itself.
Most of us are
here because at one time or another we've run into real-life problems
and need
practical solutions. We ask for advice at those times, and those who
have been around a little longer and gotten help in the past themselves
try to offer suggestions. Ofttimes those suggestions amount to
"educate
yourself, resources at <url>" but that's OK.
So trying to tell me that I shouldn't be able to expect a constructive
answer to a question is a joke. If you can't further a discussion by
adding to it constructively, don't say anything at all.
At the same time if you have nothing to say on the current subject but
it leads you to some other subject you are willing to express
yourselve, please do not hesitate to do so - *but change the subject
line accodingly to start a new thread*.
It is also not a crime now to use a NG as a forum - thus to start a
thread for a problem which is not diresctly connected with a posted
technical question. If you feel like to discuss with people you know
problems "Should 3rd party libraries be used" or "Micro$oft must die!"
or anything else you are free to do so *under an appropriate subject*.
At the same time you do /not/ discuss "Should 3rd party libraries be
used" in some "I'm getting error on line #20" thread; or personality
issues in "comp.lang.javascript FAQ problem".
You really want to discuss something OT - change the subject. Easy to
follow, but easy to forget I guess.
VK
> > [...]
> > If Mr. Bart Van der Donck is willing to donate his time for that, he
> > has my vote YES in advance.
> Bart Van der Donck wrote:
> Yes, I'm willing to follow up the daily FAQ postings. I think it will
> probably take not so much time. When the FAQ gets updated, the only
> requirement would be to keep the XML's main structure:
As the current FAQ keeper did not responde on the subject yet known for
sure that he read this thread, we have one vote YES with other
abstanded.
"August 2006, Bart Van der Donck restored the regularity of FAQ
postings."
c.l.j.'s history book :-))
I'm just scared of *daily* postings. That can be treated as an
infospace pollution :-) Maybe the traditional saturdays posting would
be better?
> <FAQ>
> <TITLE>comp.lang.javascript FAQ</TITLE>
> <CONTENTS>
> <CONTENT TITLE="chapter name">
> <CONTENT TITLE="entry title">
> text with <additional> </tags> in it
> </CONTENT>
> ...more entries in the same chapter...
> </CONTENT>
> ...more chapters with their entries...
> </CONTENTS>
> </FAQ>
>
> I think this should normally be no problem; it was my intention to make
> this as flexible as possible towards the future.
<data>
<chapter>
<title>Chapter name</title>
<faq>
<que>Question</que>
<ans>Answer</ans>
</faq>
</chapter>
<chapter>
<title>Chapter name</title>
<faq>
<que>Question</que>
<ans>Answer</ans>
</faq>
</chapter>
</data>
Wouldn't it be more simple for future data handling? (Though it can
also reflect my dislike of attributes in favor of separate nodes).
Bart Van der Donck
> [...]
> I'm just scared of *daily* postings. That can be treated as an
> infospace pollution :-) Maybe the traditional saturdays posting would
> be better?
It's only my opinion, but I think smaller content units are far more
effective, readable and inviting than posting one large document once a
week. Let's see what others say about this - if there's a common
consensus, then okay for me.
> <data>
> <chapter>
> <title>Chapter name</title>
> <faq>
> <que>Question</que>
> <ans>Answer</ans>
> </faq>
> </chapter>
> <chapter>
> <title>Chapter name</title>
> <faq>
> <que>Question</que>
> <ans>Answer</ans>
> </faq>
> </chapter>
> </data>
>
> Wouldn't it be more simple for future data handling? (Though it can
> also reflect my dislike of attributes in favor of separate nodes).
That would be a more common/logic structure indeed, at least in my
experience. I did a similar proposal on:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/226bf56685f19da1
(see bottom of that post). But the response I got on that proposal made
me just use the current structure.
But there is not a real *problem* here.
--
Bart
Richard Cornford
>> Richard Cornford wrote:
>> How often is it going to be necessary to tell you; threads do not have
>> topics, they have subjects, which do not limit/restrict the matters
>> discussed in the thread?
... . If you can't further a discussion by
> adding to it constructively, don't say anything at all.
The world in general would be better of is you would take your own
advice.
Richard.
Michael Winter
>>> Richard Cornford wrote:
>>
>> How often is it going to be necessary to tell you; threads do not
>> have topics, they have subjects, which do not limit/restrict the
>> matters discussed in the thread?
>
> Timothy Larson said it so good about the attitude demonstrated by
> some individuals like you that it is in my bookmarks for a very longe
> time.
Timothy Larson made seemingly no attempt to read previous articles, of
which there were a great many, and he was rightly criticised for it.
Discussions of XHTML occur so frequently in c.i.w.a.html that it
shouldn't even be necessary to use Google Groups to find existing threads.
He was in no position to lecture anyone on posting to Usenet.
[snip]
Now we're back to your own words...
> It is also not a crime now to use a NG as a forum
It already is, in the sense that it's a place for open discussion
(albeit one with a particular focus).
> - thus to start a thread for a problem which is not diresctly
> connected with a posted technical question.
?
> If you feel like to discuss with people you know problems "Should 3rd
> party libraries be used" or "Micro$oft must die!" or anything else
> you are free to do so *under an appropriate subject*.
>
> At the same time you do /not/ discuss "Should 3rd party libraries be
> used" in some "I'm getting error on line #20" thread; or personality
> issues in "comp.lang.javascript FAQ problem".
Given your tendency to drift off on tangents, I really don't see how you
can berate anyone else.
[snip]
You frequently display an inability to understand the facts of a given
subject, both here and in other groups. To notify others of your
unreliability, especially those that couldn't know any different, is
entirely on-topic anywhere the need arises.
You are only a special case because of the consistency of your mistakes,
and your oft observed unwillingness or inability to learn. There is only
one problem here, and only one person that can fix it. Don't look to
anyone else to change.
Mike
Randy Webb
>> Richard Cornford wrote:
>> How often is it going to be necessary to tell you; threads do not have
>> topics, they have subjects, which do not limit/restrict the matters
>> discussed in the thread?
>
> Timothy Larson said it so good about the attitude demonstrated by some
> individuals like you that it is in my bookmarks for a very longe time.
> I really have nothing to add, just changed a bit to fit to my case. The
> latest original variant can be seen at
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html/msg/7436acd5ad381b53>
Harlan Messinger said it better. The thread you refer to leads to a
second thread where this can be found:
<quote
cite="http://groups.google.com/group/comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html/tree/browse_frm/thread/dbaa66860b1de55e/0939aa73bdee0b3a?rnum=41&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fcomp.infosystems.www.authoring.html%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fdbaa66860b1de55e%2Fe647562c9c4af6da%3F#doc_e647562c9c4af6da">
VK wrote:
> This way arguments like "this exists in SGML so it ever existed (but
> was not revealed up to now) in HTML" are totally alien to me (and I
> dare to presume to many other people).
I'd swear that what you just said is that when a misconception of yours
comes to light, it's the world's obligation to move swiftly to conform
to it rather than yours to correct it.
</quote>
Although I failed to find anything you referred to as being written by
Timothy Larson.
> I've been on Usenet since 1995.
And in 11 years you have learned nothing. Why does that not surprise me?
> I don't need your opinion to inform me what a newsgroup is or is not, or
> how it should or shouldn't be used to realize its potential.
Nobody said anything about a "newsgroup" or "Usenet".
> Maybe you weren't around back in those days, or
> maybe years of the "new" internet have made you jaded.
The "new" internet? <sarcasm>Did Al Gore invent it again?</sarcasm>
> It was commonly accepted then that technical NGs such as this one were
> places that people could use as a resource to get solutions.
It still is. The problem is that your "solutions" lead to new "problems"
that people need solutions to and you tend to cause more problems/errors
than solutions.
> This isn't alt.fan.ricky-martin or something, where we can "discuss"
> back and forth with no goal or objective in mind other than the
> discussion itself.
Sure you can. This is a "discussion group", not a help desk.
> Most of us are here because at one time or another we've run into
> real-life problems and need practical solutions.
Then you are in the wrong place. This is not a help desk where you ask a
question, get a full blown answer, and you move on. Not even close.
> We ask for advice at those times, and those who have been around
> a little longer and gotten help in the past themselves try to
> offer suggestions. Ofttimes those suggestions amount to "educate
> yourself, resources at <url>" but that's OK.
The difference is that when they ask for advice, they follow it for the
most part, you don't. You argue with that advice and tell why you think
they are wrong.
But even then, there are replies in this group (from others than you)
that are dead wrong and you can bet it won't go long without being
corrected.
The difference then is when you get corrected, you ignore it and babble
on about why you are right (when you are 99.99% wrong) where others
(myself included) just take the correction and move on.
> So trying to tell me that I shouldn't be able to expect a constructive
> answer to a question is a joke.
You can expect anything you want. I can expect thought out
replies/questions from you but I won't ever get them.
> If you can't further a discussion by adding to it constructively,
> don't say anything at all.
Then why do you say anything at all?
> At the same time if you have nothing to say on the current subject but
> it leads you to some other subject you are willing to express
> yourselve, please do not hesitate to do so - *but change the subject
> line accodingly to start a new thread*.
Ummm, that doesn't start a new thread, it just changes the subject line.
Get a decent newsreader (not that crap called Google Groups) and view
this "thread".
> It is also not a crime now to use a NG as a forum - thus to start a
> thread for a problem which is not diresctly connected with a posted
> technical question. If you feel like to discuss with people you know
> problems "Should 3rd party libraries be used" or "Micro$oft must die!"
> or anything else you are free to do so *under an appropriate subject*.
And if the people here want to reply to your garbage and call you an
idiot when you have demonstrated that behavior 1000's of times before,
then we can.
> At the same time you do /not/ discuss "Should 3rd party libraries be
> used" in some "I'm getting error on line #20" thread; or personality
> issues in "comp.lang.javascript FAQ problem".
It's not a personality issue - it is an issue with the quality of what
you have to say about things that is being discussed. And, you opened
yourself up to it by your babbling about things.
> You really want to discuss something OT - change the subject. Easy to
> follow, but easy to forget I guess.
Do you not know the difference between a thread and the subject line? I
will give you a hint:
In a *decent* newsreader (not that Google Groups crap), the subject line
is irrelevant to the thread.
--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
Dr John Stockton
dated Thu, 3 Aug 2006 02:52:44 remote, seen in
news:comp.lang.javascript, Bart Van der Donck <ba...@nijlen.com> posted :
>
>It's only my opinion, but I think smaller content units are far more
>effective, readable and inviting than posting one large document once a
>week. Let's see what others say about this - if there's a common
>consensus, then okay for me.
Smaller content units posted daily in News would be useful to get the
regulars to routinely, if briefly, consider each entry to see whether it
could be improved. Especially if they believe that the better
suggestions for changes will be promptly put in the document.
For those normal FAQ readers with permanent Net connections of high
bandwidth (and assuming that the server-and-caches are fast enough), a
structure with one Web page / News article for every subsection might be
suitable.
But readers don't all have fast broadband all the time. Some have only
dial-up, some sometimes use portables without or away from wireless
links. For those, a single document is IMHO better; it's easier to get
a copy onto one's local hard disc and use that.
I have my browser set to a local home page which links to commonly used
pages both local and Web; the FAQ is one of those. The FAQ copy has
rarely been more than four clicks away for me; and I've just changed
that to one click.
With a single page (as opposed to a set of many pages), it's easier to
use a Ctrl-F search for any word that may help to locate relevant
information.
Remember that, while many questioners and some answerers access News by
Google, many of the established regulars use proper newsreaders, on/off-
line. Formatting decisions should respect Usenet convention, and not
just be based on experience of one particular interface.
* *
FAQ 2.4 "The question was not asked clearly enough, or included enough
information to be answered." -- Needs rewriting in English.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
<URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/>? JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang.javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.
VK
> effective, readable and inviting than posting one large document once a
> week.
Do whatever you think the best for the community :-) and see
if you can stay with your commitment. There are real life needs
and obligations one cannot be always aware in advance and they
may take higher priority over any online games. And FAQ posting and
maintenance in some Usenet group is still kind of online game, however
great c.l.j. is :-)
Whoever other had some great ideas about FAQ posting - they had many
months to act upon by themselves. The only reason I
did not do it because of a group of very knowledgeable but
semi over-self-estimated people in c.l.j.
I was afraid (maybe vainly) that they will use all their authority
to dispropagate the whole idea of FAQ posting rather than
let VK to be involved in that.
FAQ is the primary tool for newcomers in clj and for the beginners
in JavaScript/JScript programming. So it should the main consideration
of what is the best for these groups of posters. Their feedback will
help to improve if needed.
I have only one immediate request which is not mine but upon the
Usenet rules: what is on-topic or off-topic for a given newsgroup is
defined in the newsgroup charter. It is a subject of discussions (but
not editing) in private posts but it is not a subject of any "official"
re-wording.
This way the topic "What questions are off-topic for clj?" has to be
posted
as stored at <news.announce.newgroups> and not as proprietary narrowed
in
the current FAQ.
<quote>
comp.lang.javascript will be open to discussion on all
aspects of JavaScript, as it relates to HTML, Java, Perl, the World
Wide Web in general, and other related languages.
The scope of
discussion will specifically exclude matters which are *solely*
related to Sun Microsystems, Inc.'s Java language, which should be
discussed in comp.lang.java
</quote>
On the subject of the most appropriate FAQ data structure:
the main problem for future changes (as I see it with my narrow mind
:-)
is the individual entries' numbering and linking. That was AFAIK one of
your questions in the past: about the hash part of the URL.
It is often more convenient to suggest a partucular FAQ entry rather
than say "read the FAQ". So one can do (and did) like:
<http://www.jibbering.com/faq/...>
With FAQ entries being added/removed/replaced that would lead to dead
links
in posts or to links leading to a wrong entry.
This issue can ignored. Then we call direct entry linking "harmful" and
we use
only whole document linking with all topics being auto-numbered on each
document
request.
If we want to deal with this issue then there is no way to involve some
wiki technics
in here with each topic versioning and roll-back options. That could be
then a new
internal version of FAQ assigned after each and every change like
"faq20061234" and
then autogenerated anchors for topics like <a
name="FAQ2_1_faq20061234"> to ensure that
following a link in the post the poster really had in ming.
Or maybe it is way to complicated and there are better options.
VK
> Timothy Larson made seemingly no attempt to read previous articles, of
> which there were a great many, and he was rightly criticised for it.
In my strong opinion it is a self-containing text and it is not in need
to be brought
into some extra context to be interpreted. It is clearly about
off-topic
comments and discussions within one thread and one subject.
It is exactly about the situations where future readers of say "My
script
gives an error on X statement" will end up by reading some unrelated
stuff
without having any explicit answer to the posed question. I invite
everyone
for an extra attempt to make to comprehend the rationale.
It may be also needed to explain that a topic being discussed in the
same
group for 10-100-1000 times doesn't become an off-topic just of its
frequency.
The same goes to a topic being placed in FAQ. It may and most probably
will
become a target for comments (of different degrees of nastiness) like
"read the FAQ!", "look at recent posts!" etc. But it doesn't make an
initially
on-topic question to become off-topic.
<discussion>
que: Person A is willing to donate his time to restore FAQ posting.
What do you think about it?
ans: Person B wrote a script I'm finding utterly wrong and funny.
</discussion>
If anyone consider such "dialog" to be a normal acceptable way
to conduct discussions in comp.lang.javascript when she is surely
entitled to think so. From my side I consider such style to
be more suitable for some (bogus) alt.drogs.effects :-)
So I humbly reserve my right to call for more sanity at least
in the threads where I am participating.
About off-topic comments of a kind "do not even read what she
said on the current subject A because once I called him wrong
on the subject B":
This funny attitude is indeed sometimes demonstrated by a set of
individuals.
I guess they once mistook incorrect answer
(or whatever they think as of an incorrect answer) for a capital crime.
At the same time they seem to mistook the answering in clj for
participation
in the election campaign where each and every action in the past life
is being
brought under the scrutiny of a self-assigned committee. Usenet doesn't
let a
really wrong answer to stay long: there is always someone around to
point to
the mistake, so just relax, gals and guys.
The current sorry state of the group FAQ is heavily affected by a semi
neurasthenic
fear i) to get wrong (that would be a reason to jump of the cliff right
away :-) and
even ii) to give not the *absolutely best* answer to the question. The
fear of a wrong
action leads to the desire to not make any actions at all. This is
reflected as well in a
monstrous "What do I have to do before posting to clj?" FAQ topic which
would be more
appropriately called "Why should I be very cautious in posting at clj"
;-)
These are just a few problems to resolve in some future.
Concerning of alerting newcomers of evilness of VK or any other
"chosen" poster: clj
is unmoderated newsgroup and anyone is free to post whatever she thinks
would be relevant
for the subject. Once in ciwah I proposed to automate
the process by creating a blog proving VK's evilness and stupidness and
by using a link
to it in the post signatures. That would save the time of posters, of
readers and it would
prevent future clj archives researches from wondering why some person
(not VK) is so often
in contextual fragments "person M ignorant harmful" or "person C
halfwit bull sh**" :-)
Richard Cornford
> Michael Winter wrote:
>> Timothy Larson made seemingly no attempt to read previous articles, of
>> which there were a great many, and he was rightly criticised for it.
>
<snip>
You opinion is, as always, worthless.
<snip>
> .... I invite everyone for an extra attempt to make to
> comprehend the rationale.
comprehend ? Gibberish!
> It may be also needed to explain that a topic being discussed in the
> same group for 10-100-1000 times doesn't become an off-topic
> just of its frequency.
> The same goes to a topic being placed in FAQ. It may and most probably
> will become a target for comments (of different degrees of nastiness)
> like "read the FAQ!", "look at recent posts!" etc. But it doesn't make an
> initially on-topic question to become off-topic.
<snip>
Well, you have answered my initial question. I can attempt to explain
the distinction between the topic for the group (by which "off topic"
is judged) and the _subject_ of a post until I am blue in the face and
you still will not understand/comprehend. And as usual your inability
to comprehend follows only form your attitude that in all things you
are always right and everyone else is wrong.
Richard.
VK
Richard Cornford wrote:
> I can attempt to explain
> the distinction between the topic for the group (by which "off topic"
> is judged) and the _subject_ of a post until I am blue in the face and
> you still will not understand/comprehend. And as usual your inability
> to comprehend follows only form your attitude that in all things you
> are always right and everyone else is wrong.
<discussion>
Richard Cornford
<snip>
> So I humbly reserve my right to call for more sanity at least
> in the threads where I am participating.
Would you know sanity if you stumbled across it in the street?
Richard.
Michael Winter
> Michael Winter wrote:
>
>> Timothy Larson made seemingly no attempt to read previous articles,
>> of which there were a great many, and he was rightly criticised for
>> it.
>
> In my strong opinion it is a self-containing text and it is not in
> need to be brought into some extra context to be interpreted.
It had a motive, therefore it should be explained.
> It is clearly about off-topic comments and discussions within one
> thread and one subject.
No, it wasn't. It was an attempt by Larson to excuse, and direct
attention away from, his behaviour. For someone that had apparently used
Usenet for as long as he claimed, he should have known better. If he had
something genuinely new to add, fine, but he didn't; he asked precisely
the same sort of question that has been asked many times before.
[snip]
> It may be also needed to explain that a topic being discussed in the
> same group for 10-100-1000 times doesn't become an off-topic just of
> its frequency.
No-one stated that Larson's question was off-topic, but rather one that
had been discussed ad nauseam.
[snip]
> <discussion>
> que: Person A is willing to donate his time to restore FAQ posting.
> What do you think about it?
>
> ans: Person B wrote a script I'm finding utterly wrong and funny.
> </discussion>
But that isn't what happened in this thread, is it? This current
discussion arose because someone wondered how competent you are. Your
inability to follow discourse is a sufficient answer in itself.
[snip]
> About off-topic comments of a kind "do not even read what she said on
> the current subject A because once I called him wrong on the subject
> B":
>
> This funny attitude is indeed sometimes demonstrated by a set of
> individuals. I guess they once mistook incorrect answer (or whatever
> they think as of an incorrect answer) for a capital crime.
Again, you are attempting to misrepresent a sequence of events.
For several years, you have participated in this group. Longer than me,
in fact. Yet throughout that period, you have demonstrated a clear
misunderstanding of the language and the issues surrounding browser
scripting. More recently, you have exhibited this trend in other
newsgroups. Despite the attempts of so many regular posters to correct
those misconceptions (myself included), you continue to make them. This
isn't a case of you making one mistake, but an unthinkable amount.
Everyone makes mistakes, but most people learn from them.
> Usenet doesn't let a really wrong answer to stay long: there is
> always someone around to point to the mistake, so just relax, gals
> and guys.
Indeed, but that shouldn't need to be a regular occurrence for a single
person.
What is truly troublesome is that your errors have not been limited to
more advanced concepts, but include those that even a beginner should
come to understand (at a rudimentary level, at least) very early on.
Yet, not only do you think yourself in a position to advise others, but
to argue with other posters that clearly know better.
Though no one poster should ever be considered an absolute authority,
surely it is reasonable to conclude that when several independent people
all form the same answer, it is time to seriously re-examine one's position?
[snip]
Mike
VK
the topic of this discussion); but I don't feel like to create a new
branch "VK issue" or some :-)
So it is my last post in this particular branch.
Michael Winter wrote:
> for several years, you have participated in this group. Longer than me,
> in fact. Yet throughout that period, you have demonstrated a clear
> misunderstanding of the language and the issues surrounding browser
> scripting.
You are intitled on such opinion.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/search?group=comp.lang.javascript&q=VK+thank+you&qt_g=1&searchnow=Search+this+group>
> More recently, you have exhibited this trend in other
> newsgroups.
As say saying that XHTML is barely known anywhere outside of these
newsgroups
and that XSLT is the present and future of higher Web technologies?
You are intitled on such opinion too. It just brings into consideration
what does "wrong" mean to you?
I'm affraid that it means "whatever is not exactly what I think about
it".
Or am I wrong? Possibly I am.
> Despite the attempts of so many regular posters to correct
> those misconceptions (myself included), you continue to make them.
I would not call a number which could be counted on fingers of one hand
as "so many". Yet you are entitled for a different math, as the amount
of participants is greatly compensated by the amount of anti-VK posts
they
did with an energy asking for a much better application (like taking
care of FAQ).
Not to say I never did any mistakes in my posts: oh gosh I did!
Yet around 90% of "VK wrong" threads is a pure bias of the kind
one can see in the recent "Question on define function" post. (I posted
there
as I couldn't see anymore the poor newcomer being tortured with psalms
from the
Books of ECMA :-)
- "this refers to something here"
-- "but it may refer to something else somewhere else.
Oh how are you wrooong!"
- "this value has some pecularities"
-- "this value has no pecularities!
Oh how are you wrooong!"
Sure /this/ can hold all different values, some of which would make
Richard squeel of surprise. What does it have to do with the posted
code?
/this/ has no pecularities? Of course it is just an old good tradition
to create "self" variable to hold /this/ value - in Richard's coding
inclusive :-)
An error in the ECMAScript specs which causes /this/ to be set
incorrectly for inner functions is well known to anyone who's
making any practical programming. Do not listen VK. But you may
want to listen Douglas Crockford (inventor and developer of JSON).
<http://www.crockford.com/javascript/private.html>
I spent this space to analyse this particular "VK is wrong" case
to show how easy one can try to put another person down with no
much of efforts and not too many supporters. I mean - any person.
Richard Cornford
<snip>
> Michael Winter wrote:
>> for several years, you have participated in this group. Longer than me,
>> in fact. Yet throughout that period, you have demonstrated a clear
>> misunderstanding of the language and the issues surrounding browser
>> scripting.
>
> You are intitled on such opinion.
Even entitled to it.
> > More recently, you have exhibited this trend in other
> > newsgroups.
>
> As say saying that XHTML is barely known anywhere outside of these
> newsgroups
> and that XSLT is the present and future of higher Web technologies?
> You are intitled on such opinion too. It just brings into consideration
>
> what does "wrong" mean to you?
> I'm affraid that it means "whatever is not exactly what I think about
> it".
> Or am I wrong? Possibly I am.
>
> > Despite the attempts of so many regular posters to correct
> > those misconceptions (myself included), you continue to make them.
>
> I would not call a number which could be counted on fingers of one hand
<snip>
You have always had as much trouble doing math as you have with logic,
but even you should be better at counting.
But as with many things, it doesn't matter so much how many people have
opinions about your competence but rather how well qualified they are
to judge. And unsurprisingly it is the most technically competent,
experienced and knowledgeable who hold your skills in least esteem.
> Not to say I never did any mistakes in my posts: oh gosh I did!
> Yet around 90% of "VK wrong" threads is a pure bias ...
<snip>
The vast bulk of the criticisms of you are made on a purely technical
basis; because the statements you make are mostly false, misleading or
foolish. You only see them as bias because you really cannot see how
technically useless you are.
> - "this refers to something here"
> -- "but it may refer to something else somewhere else.
No, it may refer to something else precisely there. Your comment was
written as a script comment in the context of a function body.
> Oh how are you wrooong!"
A great many misconceptions and disappointed expectations follow from
the fact that Javascript determines its - this - value at the point
where a function is called and on the basis of the nature of that call.
It is very important to get this point across, particularly to
newcomers. They need to have expectations of - this - that correspond
with what the langue will actually do.
These are facts that haves been explained to you in considerable detail
on a number of occasions, but yet you still persist in seeing the -
this - value as operating on the basis of some indeterminate magic.
Thus when you attempt to explain your understanding of how - this -
works you act to pass on your misconceptions, the misconceptions that
leave you making those "incontinence of this" assertions that we hear
from you but you never manage to render concrete.
> - "this value has some pecularities"
> -- "this value has no pecularities!
> Oh how are you wrooong!"
The - this - value can be absolute determined by the way in which a
function is called. There are no known examples of a javascript
environment that fails to assign the - this - value in accordance with
the specification. Thus there are no peculiarities with - this - in
javascript. There are people who don't understand how javascript works
who see - this - values they are not expecting, but that is a fault in
their expectations and can be corrected by gaining an accurate
understanding of the langue. There also may be a few unhelpful
handlings of - this - inside host methods/functions/objects, but never
where you could determine the nature of the call to any pertinent
functions, and they are well known cases so not a real issue.
> Sure /this/ can hold all different values, some of which would
> make Richard squeel of surprise.
Don't be silly. I understand javascript so I know what - this - will
refer to whenever I use it.
> What does it have to do with the posted
> code?
Both of my comments were the result of the statements you made, neither
of which accurate enough to avoid potentially causing confusion.
> /this/ has no pecularities? Of course it is just an old good tradition
> to create "self" variable to hold /this/ value - in Richard's coding
> inclusive :-)
It is a means of referencing a particular object through the scope
chain from a function that forms a closure. That - self - is used as
the identifier, and - this - assigned to it just means that it was the
- this - object that the code wants to reference at the point when the
closure was created.
Of course it looks like magic to you, but then closures are advance
programming and your skills are barely rudimentary.
> An error in the ECMAScript specs which causes /this/ to be set
> incorrectly for inner functions is well known to anyone who's
> making any practical programming.
The suggestion is that the way in which - this - is handled was not
cleverly _designed_, that an alternative approach may have been more
useful. Though this is only an opinion.
Nobody is claming that any actual ECMAScript implementations do not
handle - this - in exactly the way in which the specification says they
must.
> Do not listen VK. But you may
> want to listen Douglas Crockford (inventor and developer of JSON).
> <http://www.crockford.com/javascript/private.html>
You have a habit of referring people to articles written by third
parties that you clearly have not understood and that don't actually
support your position. Asserting an opinion that ECMAScript could have
been better designed does not have any implications for what ECMAScript
actually is.
> I spent this space to analyse this particular "VK is wrong" case
> to show how easy one can try to put another person down with no
> much of efforts and not too many supporters. I mean - any person.
Do you want to hold another of your straw polls? OK. (borrowing from
your own practice on interpreting abstentions, as demonstrated nearby):
would all those people who think VK is _not_ consistently incorrect,
foolish and worthless vote here stating the fact. All abstentions will
be considered as a vote against the proposition.
(So, if you only have a dozen or so detractors, how many supporters do
you think you might have? And how qualified to judge do you think they
may be?)
Richard.
Dr John Stockton
, dated Fri, 4 Aug 2006 03:06:27 remote, seen in
news:comp.lang.javascript, VK <school...@yahoo.com> posted :
>
>I have only one immediate request which is not mine but upon the
>Usenet rules: what is on-topic or off-topic for a given newsgroup is
>defined in the newsgroup charter. It is a subject of discussions (but
>not editing) in private posts but it is not a subject of any "official"
>
>re-wording.
>
>This way the topic "What questions are off-topic for clj?" has to be
>posted
>as stored at <news.announce.newgroups> and not as proprietary narrowed
>in
>the current FAQ.
Circumstances change, and there is no working mechanism for changing a
Usenet newsgroup charter (AFAIK; better-run hierarchies can do it).
Probably the FAQ should cite the Original Charter at <Official URL?>
(nothing is "stored at news.announce.newgroups") as well as at
jubbering..
But, in the absence of a mechanism for changing the Charter, it is
appropriate that the FAQ express the current situation as judged by the
more knowledgeable regulars of the group.
Section 2.2 rightly does not claim to be or show the Charter.
-
You would seem slightly less of a half-wit if you were to arrange that
the paragraphs of your articles consisted of more-or-less equal-length
lines - others seem to manage it.
Michael Winter
[snip]
> Michael Winter wrote:
>
>> ... you have demonstrated a clear misunderstanding of the language
>> and the issues surrounding browser scripting.
>
> You are intitled on such opinion. ...
It is not opinion. It is observable fact.
>> More recently, you have exhibited this trend in other newsgroups.
>
> As say saying that XHTML is barely known anywhere outside of these
> newsgroups ...
I'm not quite sure what the start of your sentence is supposed to mean,
but the population within which XHTML is well-understood is irrelevant:
you tried your hand at it, predictably failed, and proceeded to disagree
with everyone when your mistakes were highlighted. It was only after
many posts across two or three threads that you finally acknowledged
that failure.
> and that XSLT is the present and future of higher Web technologies?
I don't know if you're trying to direct that at me, or state it in
general, but in either case, I've never commented on the use of XSLT
other than to state that it should be used to transform applications of
XML to HTML before serving it to the general population.
> ... It just brings into consideration what does "wrong" mean to you?
> I'm affraid that it means "whatever is not exactly what I think about
> it". Or am I wrong? Possibly I am.
Of course you are. I've been wrong many times: I apologised to Randy
only Thursday after making a mistake. I do not think I know everything,
nor do I consider myself an authority on Web development, but I do try
to learn from others when someone has something to teach me.
>> Despite the attempts of so many regular posters to correct those
>> misconceptions (myself included), you continue to make them.
>
> I would not call a number which could be counted on fingers of one
> hand as "so many".
Are you really that deluded? No wonder you show such self-belief: you
simply deny that you were ever wrong.
[snip]
> ... the recent "Question on define function" post. (I posted there as
> I couldn't see anymore the poor newcomer being tortured with psalms
> from the Books of ECMA :-)
So, you decided to help the OP in that thread by providing absolutely no
explanation for the purpose or the effects of the with statement, and
then proceeded to allude to problems that exist only in your mind? The
disturbing thing is that such behaviour isn't surprising from you any more.
[snip]
> An error in the ECMAScript specs which causes /this/ to be set
> incorrectly for inner functions is well known to anyone who's
> making any practical programming. Do not listen VK. But you may
> want to listen Douglas Crockford (inventor and developer of JSON).
> <http://www.crockford.com/javascript/private.html>
You tried that one with me before. It didn't work then, and it doesn't
work now.
[snip]
Mike
VK
> I'm not quite sure what the start of your sentence is supposed to mean,
> but the population within which XHTML is well-understood is irrelevant:
> you tried your hand at it, predictably failed, and proceeded to disagree
> with everyone when your mistakes were highlighted.
Oh, for Chris' sake!
"He tried with XHTML, failed on it and so moved on XSLT" ?
"He tried with algebra, failed on it and so moved on Lobachevsky's
geometry" ?
Any time after September 10th on c.i.w.a.h.
30ft, the failed one has to come on the line, no shooting below the
waist
:-)
VK
Dr John Stockton wrote:
> Circumstances change, and there is no working mechanism for changing a
> Usenet newsgroup charter (AFAIK; better-run hierarchies can do it).
There is a good working mechanism against of the "up to time
voluntarism".
I NEVER thought to teach you about the Usenet but... Quis Custodiet
Ipsos Custodes?
You cannot change it, but you can define and narrow it in your
/private/ posts.
Randy Webb
> Dr John Stockton wrote:
>> Circumstances change, and there is no working mechanism for changing a
>> Usenet newsgroup charter (AFAIK; better-run hierarchies can do it).
>
>
> There is a good working mechanism against of the "up to time
> voluntarism".
Nothing in that sentence makes any sense.
> I NEVER thought to teach you about the Usenet but... Quis Custodiet
> Ipsos Custodes?
Before you can teach something, you have to understand it, so you were
right, you can't teach about Usenet.
> You cannot change it, but you can define and narrow it in your
> /private/ posts.
"private" posts in Usenet? No comment.
Randy Webb
> VK wrote:
<snip>
>> I spent this space to analyse this particular "VK is wrong" case
>> to show how easy one can try to put another person down with no
>> much of efforts and not too many supporters. I mean - any person.
>
> Do you want to hold another of your straw polls? OK. (borrowing from
> your own practice on interpreting abstentions, as demonstrated nearby):
> would all those people who think VK is _not_ consistently incorrect,
> foolish and worthless vote here stating the fact. All abstentions will
> be considered as a vote against the proposition.
Does this mean the vote was about 6,000 to nothing that VK is
consistently incorrect? I base my 6K on VK's own Google stats of c.l.j
having 6,000 posters.
--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Temporarily at: http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/hikksnotathome/cljfaq/